The long debate over whether to require certain Bridgewater town employees and volunteers to disclose aspects of their personal finances to ferret out conflicts of interest is coming to a head.

The deadline for the specified individuals to file financial disclosure forms is May 15 or they face a fine of $25 a day beginning June 15, according to the “code of conduct and ethics” ordinance enacted by the Town Council in August.

But Councilor Paul Sullivan has introduced an order to suspend implementation of the ordinance until a committee can be formed to review it and recommend modifications and until those changes are adopted.

Rebecca Hyman

The long debate over whether to require certain Bridgewater town employees and volunteers to disclose aspects of their personal finances to ferret out conflicts of interest is coming to a head.

The deadline for the specified individuals to file financial disclosure forms is May 15 or they face a fine of $25 a day beginning June 15, according to the “code of conduct and ethics” ordinance enacted by the Town Council in August.

But Councilor Paul Sullivan has introduced an order to suspend implementation of the ordinance until a committee can be formed to review it and recommend modifications and until those changes are adopted.

Sullivan said the disclosure form will have a chilling effect on residents’ willingness to volunteer for town boards and committees.

“The intent is to get it to the point where it won’t chase away those who want to volunteer in this community,” Sullivan said at the April 2 Council meeting.

But Councilor Michael Berolini said the disclosure requirement was put in place for good reason, was a long time coming and should not be jettisoned.

“It’s really not a lot of heavy lifting. It’s just to make sure everything’s above board,” Berolini said.

And Councilor Scott Pitta, who served on the Committee that drafted the ethics ordinance, said the Council’s “founding document,” the town charter, expressly directs the Council to create a disclosure form.

Pitta said he’s not opposed to amending the ethics ordinance but Sullivan’s proposed order, co-sponsored by Councilor Sandra Wright, seems aimed at sending the disclosure form “to committee and letting it die.”

Councilor Sheila Whitaker, who served on the Town Government Study Committee that drafted the charter, said she’d also be open to modifying the disclosure form.

But she doesn’t support “halting it altogether.”

“It was put in the charter because at the time there was a concern about accountability and transparency and there were some questions about some activities. People weren’t quite sure everything was on the up and up,” Whitaker said.

The charter directs the Council to enact a “conflict of interest” ordinance that includes a requirement for “reasonable public disclosure of finances by officials with major-decision-making authority over monetary expenditures and contractual and regulatory matters.”

The definition of “reasonable” is the sticking point.

“No one is saying we’ll put this in a dark closet from which it will never return,” Sullivan said.

But Sullivan said the form needs revising to be “viable.” He’s had “more than two” volunteers tell him they would consider resigning if the form is implemented as is.

Town Clerk Ron Adams, the custodian of the disclosure forms under the ordinance, urged councilors to pass Sullivan’s order. He said the form as written will cause “serious damage” because people “won’t wish to serve.”

And he said having the Council as overseer of the process “will lead to more conflict and more turmoil.”

Councilors will likely know any officials accused of violations and might hesitate to enforce their own ordinance, Adams said.

But Pitta said mere friendship is not the legal definition of a conflict of interest. In this context, a conflict of interest exists when an official stands to gain financially from a relationship, Pitta said.

Pitta and several other councilors questioned the appropriateness of suspending the implementation of the ordinance via an order, which has less stringent procedural requirements for passage.

An order, unlike an ordinance, is not required to be advertised prior to passage.

“It does not seem above board,” said Pitta, one of three councilors who sat on the committee that drafted the ethics ordinance over a period of a year-and-a-half.

The other members of the committee were Councilor William Wood and former Councilor Kristy Colon.

Adams said he checked with the state Ethics Commission and Bridgewater has lead the Commonwealth in terms of the number of complaints filed with the agency over the past few years — though the rate is dropping now that “the recall and Whispering Wood are over,” Adams said.

And with all those complaints, the Ethics Commission hasn’t issued a single fine or letter of reprimand, Adams said.

“Transparency is alive and well in Bridgewater,” Adams said.

Adams said state ethics provisions already in place are “more than adequate” to cover town employees and officials.

But Pitta said that is not the case. Pitta said the state does not require town employees and volunteers to file a financial disclosure form. The state simply requires them to take a test on conflicts of interest.

Pitta said there has been a widespread perception, whether accurate or not, the town has been run by “a good old boys network” over the years. And that perception is harmful to the town.

“There needs to be a level of transparency where townspeople know when you sit on a board whether you also own a business that might have dealings with that board,” Pitta said.

Pitta said the committee worked hard to make the form fair and minimally intrusive while still effective over the course of a series of revisions in response to feedback.

According to the ethics ordinance, the disclosure form requirement applies to: the town councilors; the town attorney and associate town attorney; the town manager and assistant town manager, a position which does not currently exist; the veterans agent; the conservation agent; and the health agent and assistant health agent.

It also applies to the heads of the following departments: assessors, fire, police, highway, inspectional services, plumbing and gas inspector, building inspector, sealer of weights and measures, treasurer/collector, accounting and wiring inspector and assistant inspector.

And it applies to all members of the following boards: Board of Health, Community Preservation Committee, Conservation Commission, Library Trustees, Olde Scotland Links Golf Commission, Planning Board, Senior Center Trustees and Zoning Board of Appeals.

The 12-page disclosure form asks, among other things, the amount of income, if any, the filer earned in his or her capacity as a town official or employee.

Throughout the form, income is reported in ranges, not exact dollar amounts, with the maximum category being $100,001 or greater and the minimum $1,000 or less.

The form also asks the filer to list income from other government positions.

It does not ask for income from jobs outside of government.

The form asks for an itemization of businesses or non-profit organizations with which the filer or immediate family members are associated in an ownership or “managerial capacity,” with the percent of equity held by the filer disclosed only if it is 1 percent or greater.

And the form asks for an itemization of property owned by the filer or immediate family members and disclosure of the assessed value for the filer only. Filers are not required to list the value for a primary residence.

They are also asked to list all mortgages owed by them without an amount and mortgages owed to them with an amount; and all other debt without an amount, excluding car loans, education loans, medical and dental debt, credit card balances, alimony, debts to close relatives or debts incurred in “the ordinary course of a business.”

Filers are not required to disclose their net worth.

The order to suspend implementation of the ethics ordinance and disclosure form had a first reading on April 2. It must have two readings at least 14 days apart and is eligible for passage at the Council’s next meeting on April 23.